Cover not available

In:Iconicity in Cognition and across Semiotic Systems
Edited by Sara Lenninger, Olga Fischer, Christina Ljungberg and Elżbieta Tabakowska
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 18] 2022
► pp. 11–26

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

The intricate dialectics of iconization and structuration

ORCiD logo with link | Lund University
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.18.01son
Abstract
The distinction between primary and secondary iconic signs, which I first made with regard to pictures, has been applied by other scholars to language, gesture, and music. Taking stock of this process, it has become necessary to clarify the distinction, insisting on the fact that secondary iconicity is not conventionality, but a kind of iconicity which is in itself not sufficient to define a meaning, but needs to be supplemented by other means, such as a label or a system of oppositions. We have shown this to be the case earlier, when considering what Arnheim termed ‘droodles’, but we will see that it also applies to language and music.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.The “great iconicity debate”
  • 2.Primary and secondary iconic signs
  • 3.Peirceanism from the ground up
  • 4.Experimental approaches
  • 5.A process approach to meaning
  • 6.The interplay of iconization and structuration
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Ahlner, F. and Zlatev, J. 2010. Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies 38(1/4): 298–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antović, M., Stamenković, D., and Figar, V. 2016. Association of meaning in Program Music: On denotation, inherence, and onomatopoeia. Music Perception, 34(2): 243–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnheim, R. 1969. Visual thinking. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierman, A. 1963. That there are no iconic signs. Philosophy and phenomenological research, XXI11:2 (December): 243–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1968. La struttura assente. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Kant and the platypus. New York: Harcourt Brance and Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giraldo, V. 2018. Referential iconicity in music and speech within and across sensory modalities. Lund university MA thesis (unpublished).
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermerén, G. 1983. Aspects of aesthetics. Lund: CWK Gleerups.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1980. Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung. Husserliana XXIII. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. 1974. A psychology of picture perception. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. Drawing and the blind: Pictures to touch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köhler, W. 1930. Gestalt psychology. London: Bell and Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1958. Anthropologie structurale [1]. Paris: Plon.sGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maldonado, T. 1977. Vanguardia y racionalidad. Translation of Avanguardia e razionallta. Einaudi Editore, Turin 1974. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931–58. Collected Papers I-VIII. Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, Arthur. eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polidoro, P. 2012. Umberto Eco e il dibattito sull’iconismo. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Umberto Eco and the problem of iconism. Semiotica 206: 129–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. and Hubbard, E. M. 2001. Synaesthesia – A Window into Perception, Thought and Language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (12), 3–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world. Lund: Aris/Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Prolegomena to the semiotic analysis of prehistoric visual displays. Semiotica 100 (2–4): 267–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. De l’iconicité des images à l’iconicité des gestes. In Oralité est gestualité: Interactions et comportements multimodaux dans la communication. Actes du colloque ORAGE 2001, Aix-en-Provence, 18–22 juin 2001. C. Cavé, I. Guïtelle, and S. Santi (eds), 47–55. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Prolegomena to a general theory of iconicity. Considerations on language, gesture, and pictures. In Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, K. Willems and L. De Cuypere (eds), 47–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Au-delà du langage de la dance: Les significations du corps. Degrés-Revue de synthèse à orientation sémiologique 139/40: C1–C25Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies 8 (1/4): 18–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. The Meanings of Structuralism. Considerations on structures and Gestalten, with particular attention to the masks of Lévi-Strauss. Segni e comprensione, XXVI (78): 84–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Aspects of ‘physiognomic depiction’ in pictures. From macchia to microgenesis. Culture and Psychology 19 (4): 533–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Signs and Gestalten. From Visual Thinking to Pictorial Concepts. Gestalt Theory, 37 (3): 257–272.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. The phenomenological semiotics of iconicity and pictoriality – including some replies to my critics. Languages and Semiotic Studies, Vol. 2 (2): 1–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
On Mimicry, Signs and Other Meaning-Making Acts. Further Studies in Iconicity. Biosemiotics 12, 99–114 (2019). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. and Lenninger, S. (2015). The psychological development of semiotic competence: From the window to the movie by way of the mirror. Cognitive Development 36: 191–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Call, J. & Gluckman, A. 1997. Comprehension of novel communicative signs by apes and human children. Child Development, 68(6): 1067–1080. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Alenkaer Madsen, E., Lenninger, S., Persson, T., Sayehli, S., Sonesson, G. and van de Weijer, J. 2013. Understanding communicative intentions and semiotic vehicles by children and chimpanzees. Cognitive Development 28: 312–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue